Re: [MMUSIC] Draft new version: draft-ietf-mmusic-mux-exclusive-11

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Fri, 17 February 2017 18:10 UTC

Return-Path: <roman@telurix.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79D431296D7 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 10:10:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=telurix-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4uM0BqD-Ygol for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 10:10:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-it0-x231.google.com (mail-it0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D633812955C for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 10:10:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-it0-x231.google.com with SMTP id 203so30595066ith.0 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 10:10:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=telurix-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=UblC0VOdQ8wqnO2jrzqqSpfumP0KXdPXQw8j2w89In0=; b=peXrC74fu5XqiYFZvP5b7pdYDVUT9TcnmBcuPK1cq0eAeRUNFwx7kWFSxHvbo1U8rR IbBupdNyggB9nUmg/6eTTzD4fImZlujOCj4ucCGJyF4Gj4rS+ocrzlqezWnlN3IYcC4y Uleh39IK+zjcLgBDE2vCMW+iWH0aWculJrx8xP06m7p/FvqVS9t+X9UPUltvV8xV/NEu BQKJphfr6hOzyht3Lu1MNLFm93Qm0/Ro5kwvcLUkv01Fh1iLC1TADHrv+5ZHzMIixxP0 JyoAROFEI6Amib6WRf5yYVwlDJm2qe2qetHufBGJYw7k3RnwMHos4tAXqc1lTvKULEUq +P1g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=UblC0VOdQ8wqnO2jrzqqSpfumP0KXdPXQw8j2w89In0=; b=srub/l6l0aw4um54BLx+ORLk5cPr/OrHaptHXMc0dm6J4TDakctG2vhpkrnWPnoox1 30BWFXt/SRSv/75BefZVSNGFAE7isTb+B2duvRpxWE+AfouFuaJzXAYFXXKZzN02TNiR wGm7ota3C9IhIHonfADbDUYUuyEiKDDMAOw8qkAvWM3u/vrjkaKdI9EattgSG5e8gUAI QGQal8J+JEsxftANak78kulfBPfDw/DOQDKqOCV/XWkK4FjNK1NM6/CRafpanetqeh69 Qz+qHwnTVJtBsVP9Jum9KUOfNeZvqmr75VLiFGWcuzRGKi2+HYQTReMb0auUYkOJ9hJd SbBg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39klNfDW+ZvyYm2lot6iwJy4YxrYgJ7W5D7NgCiw90YqDKZpU8pCEfrcIkuyqVmYNw==
X-Received: by 10.107.5.137 with SMTP id 131mr8612632iof.87.1487355013099; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 10:10:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-it0-f42.google.com (mail-it0-f42.google.com. [209.85.214.42]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m198sm870357itg.1.2017.02.17.10.10.12 for <mmusic@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 17 Feb 2017 10:10:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-it0-f42.google.com with SMTP id g67so23544706itb.1 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 10:10:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.36.76.205 with SMTP id a196mr3358894itb.52.1487355012254; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 10:10:12 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.233.3 with HTTP; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 10:10:11 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <405b8725-7173-19f2-58a4-ebae6cbd7814@comcast.net>
References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B4C005232@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <405b8725-7173-19f2-58a4-ebae6cbd7814@comcast.net>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 13:10:11 -0500
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAD5OKxv-ezw2jx47D_wYr9V8gc=rgJLN6ncWhWakVuz7dBfKow@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxv-ezw2jx47D_wYr9V8gc=rgJLN6ncWhWakVuz7dBfKow@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Kyzivat <paul.kyzivat@comcast.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11431eb62918d30548bdd306"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/_8bInLM_sY1d34I68N2BjyLeooA>
Cc: "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Draft new version: draft-ietf-mmusic-mux-exclusive-11
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mmusic/>
List-Post: <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 18:10:15 -0000

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Paul Kyzivat <paul.kyzivat@comcast.net>
wrote:

> On 2/17/17 3:46 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Based on the comments from Ekr, I've submitted a new version of
>> draft-mux-exclusive.
>>
>> The SDP 'rtcp-mux-only' attribute is now only allowed in SDP offers.
>>
>
> With the new text the offerer never knows if the answerer supports
> rtcp-mux-only. He only knows that the answerer supports rtcp-mux.
>
> I don't think this matters for that O/A, but it might matter for
> subsequent O/As.
>
> At the least, I think section 4.5 is now confusing. For m-lines previously
> negotiated with rtcp-mux-only, must the side that is sending a new offer
> include the attribute again, while the side that is answering must *not*
> include it? (Note the implications when the new offer is in the opposite
> direction from the original one.) I think this will be somewhat of a pain -
> perhaps more pain than simply always including it in all offers and answers.
>

Based comments from Ekr, the offerer never cares if the answerer supports
rtcp-mux-only. It only cares that answerer supports rtcp-mux. The whole
purpose of rtcp-mux-only attribute is to promise to all the parties on the
signaling path, such as SBC, that offerer will not accept an answer without
rtcp-mux. Based on this promise SBC does not need to allocate an RTCP port
for the duration of offer transaction. There is no difference here between
the initial offer and offers in session updates -- in either case without
rtcp-mux-only attribute SBC would need to allocate an extra port during the
session update transaction. So, it does not matter what was negotiated
before in the session, every offer in every direction must include
rctp-mux-only if offerer is not willing to accept the answer without
rtcp-mux, and should not include rtcp-mux-only if offerer allocated the
RTCP port and is willing to accept an answer without mux. It makes no sense
to include rtcp-mux-only in the answer, since if it includes rtcp-mux
attribute, it is enough of the indication that RTP and RTCP are muxed and
no extra port is needed.

Regards,
_____________
Roman Shpount